Do you really think Wind Power is the Answer?

Question

In the first place you'd have to have strong winds at all times, 24/7, 365. This occurs almost no place on earth. So without that you'd have to have another source of electricity which comes from conventional sources Oil, Nuclear coal. Something has to power the turbines when the wind is not blowing!

Why don’t people understand that there's no storage on the power grid? There's no possible way to store that kind of electricity. There are no batteries large enough. This is the fatal flaw of wind energy. It requires fossil fuel backup of at least 90% of the installed capacity of whatever the windmills are.

The backup sources, coal, nuke, and gas --take a long time to ramp up and down, so basically they have to be running all the time to cover the intermittency of wind, and the bottom line is wind turbines produce no net CO2 reduction, even though that's basically the only reason they exist!

Look at what's going on in Europe with respect to wind energy, and it's not a good....

Answer 1

You want to give up without trying because it's more convenient. We have to keep perfecting and working to find alternatives to fossil fuels, we simply must. As for the turbines...

You combine solar and wind power together. Solar panels produce the electricity needed to run the turbines on days when the winds are not enough to produce sufficient energy. Placement of turbines a key factor here. Remember too, that  turbines are built high, they catch the upper level winds that may not reach the ground. This is a clean alternative and we need clean alternatives fast..Instead of whining, come up with a clean, alternative way to power the turbines, put your good mind to work on something useful.

Aren't you tired of being owned by the oil industry? Carpooling is helping tremendously, recycling and reusing are in practice and bills are going down, way down,  because we've greatly reduced our fuel bills. Resuing glass and plastic containers. Recycling everything that can't be reused  for something else. Donating rather than tossing out, if there is the possibility that someone will want these items, it is better to at least try to give them away to be used than throw them away.  You do what you can, and turbines are just another alternative, but like all new technology, it will improve. Look how far cell phones have come in just a short time. It can be done, if people want it and more and more, people do.

Answer 2

sure

Answer 3

Like most things in life, no single thing is the answer. You are correct, Both Wind and Solar can only produce power about 1/3 of the time, and even then it is not always reliable even on a day to day or hour by hour basis. This is the primary reason Solar and Wind power are not in use everywhere.

Solar and wind can be used as a supplement to our grid power though, and reduce the overall amount of oil we use which will help us to reduce CO2, depend less on Arab oil, and reduce prices due to supply and demand. It will raise the cost of power some, but the benefit could be great in the long run.

The Stupid, Lazy, liberal media and uninformed or dishonest "Environmentalists" should get the facts and stop brainwashing the public into thinking all we have to do is go to Solar / Wind alternatives. Nuclear is the only alternative energy source available today that can provide the amount of reliable grid power we need.

If this were not the fact, do you not believe all those well educated and progressive countries around the world would be using solar and wind?  Well they are not! Not in a way they must depend on it. Think. Use your head, not your feelings, and NEVER believe anything the main stream media says.

Answer 4

wind power is an excellent idea, and ur right it wont run 24/7. but  again this is where the grid helps.

Answer 5

We already have storage and levelling technology in hydropower.  Have you ever heard of pumped storage?  They pump water uphill when there is excess power, so it can generate hydropower when there is a shortage of wind.

Also, natural gas turbines can come on-line as backup in a matter of minutes.

Besides, nobody really thinks wind power will supply 100% of our power.  Other technologies like nuclear, solar, biomass, hydro, etc. will be part of the energy future.  The goal is to adopt alot more wind and use those other technologies for the balance.

Answer 6

Not sure, but it seems like Gore is sure blowing alot of hot air with his hypocritical and uninformed opinions.

Answer 7

Many great answers so far.  As many have pointed out, the fundamental flaw in your argument is that nobody is claiming we should rely on wind for 100% of our power.  However, it's obvious that the more wind we utilize the better.

For starters in terms of cost per energy produced, wind is cheaper than nuclear.

http://www.iea.org/Textbase/nptable/2007...

Secondly I don't know how you can possibly claim that "wind turbines produce no net CO2 reduction".  The energy return on investment (EROI) for wind turbines is 18 on average and increasing.  This means they produce 18 times more energy than is require to build them.

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/10/...

Since wind produces zero emissions while operating, quite obviously it does produce a net CO2 reduction, and a big one at that.

Answer 8

I think some of the points in your question are flawed but that being said it is windy on water almost all of the time which is why some nations on the ocean get a substantial portion of their power from wind energy.  It may not be able to solve all of our energy needs but why is oil the ONLY answer?  Why not diversify simply to help our trade deficit?  What would be the harm if we paid farmers to rent power companies their land for wind energy instead of just paying them to not farm their land?  I understand the economics of propping up the food market, but that land could be useful for things other than farming, you know?!

Answer 9

Wind power is an excellent source of electricity when the wind blows at optimum speeds as you mentioned and can be used immediately as you mentioned. However, an electric transmission grid can only carry so much electricity through the lines. Currently, the United States is seriously lacking in our transmission infrastructure. Therefore, there isn't "space" to add wind power generation that is intermittent without removing constant sources like coal, natural gas and nuclear power. Also, wind farms can be as difficult to site as a power plant. The turbines are very large and not something everyone would like to look at everyday.

Wind can be a part of the electricity mix as can other renewable sources, but we have to build the infrastructure to support those technologies.

Natural gas fired generation plants can actually be brought on line relatively quickly without running constantly and are excellent forms of back up generation, but they are more expensive to build and run than coal fired generation plants.

Answer 10

Wind should be used in places where it is practical as a supplement to our energy grid not a replacement.

When the wind is blowing cycle down fuel fired plants. When it is not then it is not.

The environmentalists won't be happy with the amount of land required for these massive wind generators and transmission towers. They are big, noisy and a danger to wildlife. There is no perfect source of energy.

Answer 11

I agree with you.  Unfortunately, most people today are headline oriented and fail to see - or even seek - the truth.  They operate at a "wouldn't that be nice" level of naivety that says drilling in Alaska or the ocean is bad because Ted Kennedy says it is bad so it must be true.

Answer 12

Solar energy is more available but wind energy can be really cheap cheap cheap cheap.

Ammonia can be used to store this renewable and changeable energy.

Solar and wind energy need no fossil fuel if ammonia... is used to store it.

Answer 13

Two problems with your assumptions:

1 - That we cannot store energy

Here are three simple examples of using energy when it is available -

Using electrolysis to produce H2 to run cars stores energy.

Many houses in the UK (and other countries)  have storage heaters that consume cheap electricity at night and store it.

Pumping water (in municipal systems) when power is available

You say that you "have to have strong winds at all times, 24/7, 365" - not at all, all power systems have variable production capacities and adjust all the time

2 - That unless an energy source is available all the time, or can provide all our needs, it isn't useful

The solution to the world's energy needs and GW will be a mix of solutions. The problem is complex; so will the solution be.

No one is advocating that all of our energy come from wind.

As for what's happening in Europe, shame you ran out of space as I'd like to know what's "not good"...

Wind power constitutes19% of electricity production in Denmark, 9% in Spain and Portugal, and 6% in Germany and the Republic of Ireland (2007 data).

The oil mogul T Boone Pickens (who has done quite well by understanding the energy market and not being the sort to waste money) is putting $12bn into wind turbines in Texas and is advocating that the US move from 1% of wind-generated energy production to 15% in the next few decades.

So, to your question:

Do I think wind power is the answer?

No, not THE answer. But absolutely YES to being PART of the answer.

Answer 14

It's possible to store wind energy via ammonia production.

We store about 3500 kwh per m3 of produced liquid ammonia.

Scheme:

-Electric energy storage:

wind energy  ----> electric energy --(efficiency about 70%)-->  hydrogen  --(efficiency about 85%)--> ammonia production

-Electric energy production:

ammonia  ----> hydrogen production ----> electric energy

.

Answer 15

Well us country boys in Texas are already doing wind power-- Texas generates almost 25% of the total USA wind power megawatts-- and it is due to double again in the next 2 years. Read this article TODAY in the Dallas Morning News -- Texas is spending almost 5 billion dollars to construct the power transmission towers from West Texas wind farms to the major cities.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/...

Then read Boone Picken's plan to eliminate 300 billion per year in oil imports-- at---

http://www.pickensplan.com

While folks on this topic discuss the pros and cons of supposed GW--- Texas is building a renewable energy source for economic reasons and NOT for GW.

Answer 16

I firmly believe that Nuclear Power is the answer. It is the most cost effective, it emits NO greenhouse gasses and is the most reliable.

Wind and solar power are good alternatives and "extras" and could generate a good amount of the worlds electricity but are not an excellent solution. Like you mentioned, these methods of obtaining energy are relatively inconsistent. I will guarantee you that over the next 50 years there will be a major switch to nuclear energy unless their are quantum leaps in photovoltaic and wind powered technology.

Answer 17

NO !!! Here in Texas  when U need the power for lights at night the wind stops..

Answer 18

It's part of the answer, for sure.  Yes, you'd need other things that run 24/7.  But that's why we have a "grid".  Power plants automatically run only as hard as they need to.  Put wind power on the grid, the other stuff runs less.

This guy thinks there's a future for wind:

"The simple truth is that cheap and easy oil is gone. What's the good news?  The United States is the Saudi Arabia of wind power."

T. Boone Pickens. If you don't recognize the name, he's been in the "oil bidness" for many years, making many billions of dollars.

He's now investing them in the world's largest wind farm, being built in Texas. Folks in Texas might say:

T. Boone thinks the best way to make money in energy is to build a wind farm? That's strong.

Answer 19

When we use wind to supplement nuclear power, we always have enough nuclear to supply all of our needs, and sell the extra wind power as surplus to need. This is because we have no smart panel technology that would shut down optional loads when we are short of wind, and make use of surplus wind power as and when available.

No matter how much wind capacity we have in Ontario, we know that wind energy production drops to almost zero exactly when Ontario's electrical demand is greatest, on hot humid smoggy summer days. So, we have to fire up the coal plants on days when we will suffer from smog.

Once again, however, we are firing up air conditioners that push heat out of homes and offices at the heat of day instead of using the cool of night. We even have electric water heaters come on to heat volumes of water when our grid is at capacity.

I am saying we need to save generating capacity when we are short of generating capacity, and days without wind  are becoming part of that formula.

Solar power just happens to provide us power when our grid is normally short of power, so it fits into our grid needs every day, including days with very high demand. If we could get installed enough solar power to cover off our daily demand peak, it would save us millions in not having to increase other grid components, coal, hydro, or nuclear.

We could use our hydro resources only during daytime to cover off our daily demand peak, but we would have to more than double the generating capacity and restrict (block) the flow of the rivers at night. That may still make sense.

We can build enormous flywheels that can store enough electricity to keep us going for  a week. but we can have a month of low wind in summer, We always have 3 to 4 months in summer with less than 10% of rated capacity,   So, wind gives us good steady power only in winter. Even then we have whole days with minimal output.

We could get away with wind power in winter if we have smart panel technology. We might get along with wind in summer if we cut out use of A/C and had smart panel technology.

But wind is not giving us the ability to cut down one bit on nuclear capacity, and when our coal usage is greatest, we do not get wind.

If we did not have nuclear, if we did not have coal, we would have to get by with hydro, wind, solar, and bio-gas. And we could do it, but we would need smart panel technology, We might even require user capacity use restrictions whenever capacity is short.

Increasing the amount of wind power capacity would not change that enough even if we have a continental grid.